Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

[communistworkethic]

At the risk of starting a more serious discussion in a hijacked thread, I noted that a Canadian professor has published a recent book on God, science and religion taking a fairly unorthodox view. I doubt it will provide any common ground for Tango and commie, but I reproduce the (lengthy) review below.

I don't think it is anything new and the comments of Mr Amato are silly.

The idea that the laws of physics and their governing of nature should inspire awe is hardly ground breaking stuff. Nor is the idea that physics is what religion personifies as "god" a new idea.

Development of the universe is unpredictable,eh? Well I never. Earth shattering. Nature-based religious sensibility, kind of like bhuddism has then?

In fact, the premise that science and "nature" are awe inpsiring in their creativity and magnitude is what enables us to see why people might attach the "god" label to these things as, in many cases, what we see is incredible in its purest definition.

Mr Kauffman's "findings" add nothing that we don't already have/know.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

At the risk of starting a more serious discussion in a hijacked thread, I noted that a Canadian professor has published a recent book on God, science and religion taking a fairly unorthodox view. I doubt it will provide any common ground for Tango and commie, but I reproduce the (lengthy) review below.

I don't think it is anything new and the comments of Mr Amato are silly.

The idea that the laws of physics and their governing of nature should inspire awe is hardly ground breaking stuff. Nor is the idea that physics is what religion personifies as "god" a new idea.

Development of the universe is unpredictable,eh? Well I never. Earth shattering. Nature-based religious sensibility, kind of like bhuddism has then?

In fact, the premise that science and "nature" are awe inpsiring in their creativity and magnitude is what enables us to see why people might attach the "god" label to these things as, in many cases, what we see is incredible in its purest definition.

Mr Kauffman's "findings" add nothing that we don't already have/know.

I wouldn't want to comment on the book itself without reading it, but the reviewer does seem to be talking nonsense. Einstein was saying this sort of thing very eloquently long before that book was conceived. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quo ... stein.html

[communistworkethic]

quite, the "God doesn't play dice" comment from Einstein, often wrongly used to suggest he believed, was about the fact that rules govern the universe/nature.

[Prufrock]

There's nothing new there. At all. As Mummy says you wouldnt want to judge the book before reading it, but the reviewer talks it up as groudbreaking, which it clearly isn't. Most non-beleivers of an anthropomorphic god accept the possibility or even likelihood or some sort of force, or spark if you will that set life in motion. To dress this up as groudbreaking, and particularly to talk about '21st century prophets' seems a bit OTT when describing an idea that is not particularly original nor complicated.